why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange? and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC? if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.

the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.

Because there is a MATH no 3D party -> how to convert(lock) BTC to scBTC

Rule #1You can anytime convert BTC to scBTC using this conversion function (if btc protocol is not broken)

this is where i still don't understand. remember, i'm trying to think of a scenario where SC's can hurt Bitcoin.

presumably, both BTC and scBTC will be traded 24/7 on an exchange for USD. if a scBTC begins to exceed the value of a BTC in USD terms b/c the market perceives the SC to have a superior feature of whatever, then BTC will start to migrate to the SC as scBTC. why? b/c they're worth MORE in USD terms. at some point, you could even imagine where there could be a rush to make this conversion if the tech is that much better. mining power would also migrate to the SC. this cannot be arbed away b/c in this scenario, the SC is superior making the scBTC more valuable, no matter that a 1:1 peg exists. this could get quite disorderly and ecoomically disadvantageous for BTC holders with this confirmation and contest period of 1-2 days. what am i missing?

SideChain is not same as AltCoins-> SideChain does not require POW nor "blockchain" to work .. (but SC can use them, it is problem of SC-participants) 1) SC will only set-up some address/addresses in Bitcoin-world (lock bitcoins to prevent double-spent) -> and create SideChain-world 2) In SC-world you can do SC-transactions (even by e-mail) -> build some hash-tree (you do not have to broadcast transactions to ALL WORLD and verify that ALL SEE THEM, b/c only participants matters) 3) SC-world has rules (Bitcoin users not affected) how to withdrawn/unlock bitcoins from scBTC (they must be able to create valid bitcoin transaction to unlock bitcoins).

why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange? and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC? if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.

the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.

Because there is a MATH no 3D party -> how to convert(lock) BTC to scBTC

Rule #1You can anytime convert BTC to scBTC using this conversion function (if btc protocol is not broken)

this is where i still don't understand. remember, i'm trying to think of a scenario where SC's can hurt Bitcoin.

presumably, both BTC and scBTC will be traded 24/7 on an exchange for USD. if a scBTC begins to exceed the value of a BTC in USD terms b/c the market perceives the SC to have a superior feature of whatever, then BTC will start to migrate to the SC as scBTC. why? b/c they're worth MORE in USD terms. at some point, you could even imagine where there could be a rush to make this conversion if the tech is that much better. mining power would also migrate to the SC. this cannot be arbed away b/c in this scenario, the SC is superior making the scBTC more valuable, no matter that a 1:1 peg exists. this could get quite disorderly and ecoomically disadvantageous for BTC holders with this confirmation and contest period of 1-2 days. what am i missing?

My understanding, and I might be wrong :

- I'm not sure about the concept of scBTC trading on exchanges for reasons that buying a 4$ share of BTC and transferring to SC will give you 4$ share of scBTC. Value of BTC and sBTC are correlated, no matter the 1:x peg.

- My assumption is the share of scBTC pie you can claim is representative to the share of BTC you own. In that sense, if a SC is so superior that there are clear incentives for people to transfer their BTC to this chain, it does not matter when they do it for their stake in BTC, even while on BTC's blockchain, is simply a stake of scBTC they have not claimed YET.

- If this assumption is true then automatically the value of a Bitcoin will rise will the value of its "to-be-claimed" stake in sBTC and be redeemable for the same USD exchange rate

edit : Maybe this makes no sense but this is how I understand it.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

SideChain is not same as AltCoins-> SideChain does not require POW nor "blockchain" to work .. (but SC can use them, it is problem of SC-participants)

this is not true. everyone has been talking about how to secure a SC blockchain with the most common solution and criticism being merge mining.

Quote

1) SC will only set-up some address/addresses in Bitcoin-world (lock bitcoins to prevent double-spent) -> and create SideChain-world

SC world need security or else attackers will steal the scBTC

Quote

2) In SC-world you can do SC-transactions (even by e-mail) -> build some hash-tree (you do not have to broadcast transactions to ALL WORLD and verify that ALL SEE THEM, b/c only participants matters) 3) SC-world has rules (Bitcoin users not affected) how to withdrawn/unlock bitcoins from scBTC (they must be able to create valid bitcoin transaction to unlock bitcoins).

you still haven't answered how a SC can't hurt Bitcoin if the economic value of a scBTC starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange? and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC? if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.

the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.

Because there is a MATH no 3D party -> how to convert(lock) BTC to scBTC

Rule #1You can anytime convert BTC to scBTC using this conversion function (if btc protocol is not broken)

Rule #2There is conversion function (MATH) how to convert scBTC to BTC (unlock your/anybody previously locked coins ... if SideChain is not broken => you cannot unlock more, than was locked)

Jumping in. Let's say a scheme like this could be created. As I have argued elsewhere, the value of the money is dependent on the preference to hold. Now even if there is an equal number of locked bitcoins and number of scBTC in existence, the values would differ. Why? This is because the traits of a bitcoin and the traits of a scBTC is different. This is the whole point of the sidechain coins, they are better for some purpose, for example micropayments, and they would also differ in the assumed long time viability, for example. So the question for a holder of some value would repeatedly be, should I hold in bitcoin or should I hold in scBTC, and the choice will affect the value of each.

Should the value of scBTC prove to be higher on the market, according to those preferences, all value would then eventually move to the sidechain coins, and bitcoin would die.

why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange? and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC? if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.

the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.

Because there is a MATH no 3D party -> how to convert(lock) BTC to scBTC

Rule #1You can anytime convert BTC to scBTC using this conversion function (if btc protocol is not broken)

this is where i still don't understand. remember, i'm trying to think of a scenario where SC's can hurt Bitcoin.

presumably, both BTC and scBTC will be traded 24/7 on an exchange for USD. if a scBTC begins to exceed the value of a BTC in USD terms b/c the market perceives the SC to have a superior feature of whatever, then BTC will start to migrate to the SC as scBTC. why? b/c they're worth MORE in USD terms. at some point, you could even imagine where there could be a rush to make this conversion if the tech is that much better. mining power would also migrate to the SC. this cannot be arbed away b/c in this scenario, the SC is superior making the scBTC more valuable, no matter that a 1:1 peg exists. this could get quite disorderly and ecoomically disadvantageous for BTC holders with this confirmation and contest period of 1-2 days. what am i missing?

My understanding, and I might be wrong :

- I'm not sure about the concept of scBTC trading on exchanges for reasons that buying a 4$ share of BTC and transferring to SC will give you 4$ share of scBTC. Value of BTC and sBTC are correlated, no matter the 1:x peg.

- My assumption is the share of scBTC pie you can claim is representative to the share of BTC you own. In that sense, if a SC is so superior that there are clear incentives for people to transfer their BTC to this chain, it does not matter when they do it for their stake in BTC, even while on BTC's blockchain, is simply a stake of scBTC they have not claimed YET.

- If this assumption is true then automatically the value of a Bitcoin will rise will the value of its "to-be-claimed" stake in sBTC and be redeemable for the same USD exchange rate

edit : Maybe this makes no sense but this is how I understand it.

ah, that does make sense actually. but what happens if, as it becomes clear that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin, miners begin to jack their mining tx fees just b/c they can to create the SPV proof tx required to make the switch to scBTC?

also, there still is the question of Blockstream creating an additional asset on the winning SC ahead of time that stands to profit from a rush of BTC to scBTC.

-> SideChain does not require POW nor "blockchain" to work .. (but SC can use them, it is problem of SC-participants)

Same as altcoins

Quote

1) SC will only set-up some address/addresses in Bitcoin-world (lock bitcoins to prevent double-spent) -> and create SideChain-world

Same as altcoins (using an IPO/ICO/proof-of-burn)

Quote

2) In SC-world you can do SC-transactions (even by e-mail) -> build some hash-tree (you do not have to broadcast transactions to ALL WORLD and verify that ALL SEE THEM, b/c only participants matters)

Same as altcoins

Quote

3) SC-world has rules (Bitcoin users not affected) how to withdrawn/unlock bitcoins from scBTC (they must be able to create valid bitcoin transaction to unlock bitcoins).

This is slightly different from altcoins in that you can only exchange back to BTC if there is a willing buyer no an exchange, and the side chain concept provides something like an automated market maker that allows you to do so at some price and under some conditions (both of which can vary depending on the side-chain).

-> I'll only send bitcoin to sidechain if I can get some advantage e.g. fast transfer to buy coffe ( HOT wallet )

how are you gonna do this with a 1-2 day confirmation/contest period

You would do it in advance of course. Keeping a small amount of spending money on the fast chain for these sorts of purchases.

ok, fair enough. what if you need to move large #'s BTC from cold storage into scBTC quickly if it becomes clear the SC is going to dominate b/c of some innovative feature and the exchange price is fluctuating wildly in the meantime?

You have a call option at a 1:1 price, so you really don't need to move quickly, as far as I can tell, at least not for economic reasons. If you expect the BTC blockchain to be abandoned or fail, you might be in a hurry. I think moving from BTC to SC is fast though right, just not the other way?

SideChain is not same as AltCoins-> SideChain does not require POW nor "blockchain" to work .. (but SC can use them, it is problem of SC-participants)

this is not true. everyone has been talking about how to secure a SC blockchain with the most common solution and criticism being merge mining.

Believe me, It is SC-participant's problem "how to secure SC". They can use blockchain, POW, POS, central entity, 10 oracles, signatures of all participants ... possibilities are endless. -> Bitcoin users not affected (there can be 1,000,000,000 sidechains -> not affecting Bitcoin)

Quote

1) SC will only set-up some address/addresses in Bitcoin-world (lock bitcoins to prevent double-spent) -> and create SideChain-world

SC world need security or else attackers will steal the scBTC[/quote]

SC-world can work under the radar, no one know if SC exists. It depends what they use (blockchain, POW, POS, DPOS, central entity, 10 oracles, ..). They can know each others ... they can use tor to exchange transactions

Quote

2) In SC-world you can do SC-transactions (even by e-mail) -> build some hash-tree (you do not have to broadcast transactions to ALL WORLD and verify that ALL SEE THEM, b/c only participants matters) 3) SC-world has rules (Bitcoin users not affected) how to withdrawn/unlock bitcoins from scBTC (they must be able to create valid bitcoin transaction to unlock bitcoins).

you still haven't answered how a SC can't hurt Bitcoin if the economic value of a scBTC starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.[/quote]

ah, that does make sense actually. but what happens if, as it becomes clear that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin, miners begin to jack their mining tx fees just b/c they can to create the SPV proof tx required to make the switch to scBTC?

also, there still is the question of Blockstream creating an additional asset on the winning SC ahead of time that stands to profit from a rush of BTC to scBTC.

I understand you are trying to poke holes into the concept and it is legitimate to consider these ideas BUT to me, suggesting that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin is essentially the same as entertaining the possibility that an altcoin would take over. The chances are slim to none, for the innovation required by this SC/alt would be so considerable that if we do reach this point, then to me it simply makes sense that Bitcoin core and their developers will recognize the innovation and adapt Bitcoin accordingly.

I don't see the advent of sidechains bringing forward fundamental, competing, money-function blockchain. I think it is Risto or Aminorex that said there are only two liquidity market currencies can compete for : legitimate and dark market. Once one or two have established their dominance over these, any additional feature is superficial and will not attract anything more than situational/speculative use.

I see sidechains as application specific uses of units derived from the Bitcoin ledger. IMO, any attempt at creating a sidechain that will compete with Bitcoin's money function will fail the same way alt coins have failed.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

-> I'll only send bitcoin to sidechain if I can get some advantage e.g. fast transfer to buy coffe ( HOT wallet )

how are you gonna do this with a 1-2 day confirmation/contest period

You would do it in advance of course. Keeping a small amount of spending money on the fast chain for these sorts of purchases.

ok, fair enough. what if you need to move large #'s BTC from cold storage into scBTC quickly if it becomes clear the SC is going to dominate b/c of some innovative feature and the exchange price is fluctuating wildly in the meantime?

You have a call option at a 1:1 price, so you really don't need to move quickly, as far as I can tell, at least not for economic reasons. If you expect the BTC blockchain to be abandoned or fail, you might be in a hurry. I think moving from BTC to SC is fast though right, just not the other way?

not my understanding. there's a 1-2 day confirmation/contest period which i think would be bilateral.

-> I'll only send bitcoin to sidechain if I can get some advantage e.g. fast transfer to buy coffe ( HOT wallet )

how are you gonna do this with a 1-2 day confirmation/contest period

You would do it in advance of course. Keeping a small amount of spending money on the fast chain for these sorts of purchases.

ok, fair enough. what if you need to move large #'s BTC from cold storage into scBTC quickly if it becomes clear the SC is going to dominate b/c of some innovative feature and the exchange price is fluctuating wildly in the meantime?

You have a call option at a 1:1 price, so you really don't need to move quickly, as far as I can tell, at least not for economic reasons. If you expect the BTC blockchain to be abandoned or fail, you might be in a hurry. I think moving from BTC to SC is fast though right, just not the other way?

not my understanding. there's a 1-2 day confirmation/contest period which i think would be bilateral.

I guess I'll reread the paper again and skim a bit less the third time.

In any case, there is no economic reason exercise such a call option. You'd have to fear the main chain failing catastrophically.

ah, that does make sense actually. but what happens if, as it becomes clear that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin, miners begin to jack their mining tx fees just b/c they can to create the SPV proof tx required to make the switch to scBTC?

also, there still is the question of Blockstream creating an additional asset on the winning SC ahead of time that stands to profit from a rush of BTC to scBTC.

I understand you are trying to poke holes into the concept and it is legitimate to consider these ideas BUT to me, suggesting that a SC is going to win over Bitcoin is essentially the same as entertaining the possibility that an altcoin would take over. The chances are slim to none, for the innovation required by this SC/alt would be so considerable that if we do reach this point, then to me it simply makes sense that Bitcoin core and their developers will recognize the innovation and adapt Bitcoin accordingly.

I don't see the advent of sidechains bringing forward fundamental, competing, money-function blockchain. I think it is Risto or Aminorex that said there are only two liquidity market currencies can compete for : legitimate and dark market. Once one or two have established their dominance over these, any additional feature is superficial and will not attract anything more than situational/speculative use.

I see sidechains as application specific uses of units derived from the Bitcoin ledger. IMO, any attempt at creating a sidechain that will compete with Bitcoin's money function will fail the same way alt coins have failed.

you've avoided my question though.

besides, if you've ever did controlled studies, the best way to implement one of these SC's is to duplicate everything about Bitcoin and then add one killer function/variable, like anonymity, to definitively prove a difference. that's the whole purpose of these SC's as Erdogan says above, to create better features. and since both BTC and scBTC will be traded 24/7 they will reach their equilibrium values which WON'T be the same as the chains are by design different. your above theory of equal value doesn't apply b/c of mining fees to convert.

in fact, if there is a rush to get out of BTC and into scBTC, miners are going to HAVE TO charge extortionist tx fees b/c it would be clear that BTC will be going to zero so their risk of mining an SPV proof while being paid in BTC is high.

you still haven't answered how a SC can't hurt Bitcoin if the economic value of a scBTC starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

Hmm, what about an alt-coin -> if the economic value of ALT starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

that's true but then why should we duplicate that exposure via SC's? in fact, this is worse b/c of all the other conflicts of interest involving core devs i've mentioned in this discussion.

Using SC, bitcoin can adapt ANY feature instantly. Bitcoin can test this feature in sandbox (SC) and make resulta) must to have -> feature is implementedb) nice to have -> let's wait we will see latter, SC works goodc) scam -> feature RIP

besides, if you've ever did controlled studies, the best way to implement one of these SC's is to duplicate everything about Bitcoin and then add one killer function/variable, like anonymity, to definitively prove a difference. that's the whole purpose of these SC's as Erdogan says above, to create better features. and since both BTC and scBTC will be traded 24/7 they will reach their equilibrium values which WON'T be the same as the chains are by design different. your above theory of equal value doesn't apply b/c of mining fees to convert.

in fact, if there is a rush to get out of BTC and into scBTC, miners are going to HAVE TO charge extortionist tx fees b/c it would be clear that BTC will be going to zero so their risk of mining an SPV proof while being paid in BTC is high.

I've avoided it for the reasons I have stated : I cannot envision that scenario unfolding.

The ONLY killer function you could add is indeed, anonymity. And by killer I mean it would steal part of Bitcoin's market share but nevertheless you would still be left two economies : a white market and a black market.

Of course their value will not be the same because the sidechains in effect are apart of Bitcoin's economy. The value of Bitcoin will be represented by the value of all sidechains combined and of the standalone BTC blockchain.

It seems you are putting forward a scenario that has mostly been dismissed ever since it existed from the presence of altcoins only because of your pessimism about sidechains.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Using SC, bitcoin can adapt ANY feature instantly. Bitcoin can test this feature in sandbox (SC) and make resulta) must to have -> feature is implementedb) nice to have -> let's wait we will see latter, SC works goodc) scam -> feature RIP

It is one of 1,000 ... advantages of SC

that's right. sidechains are essentially a laboratory of innovation akin to altcoins but supported by and supporting Bitcoin's network effect

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

you still haven't answered how a SC can't hurt Bitcoin if the economic value of a scBTC starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

Hmm, what about an alt-coin -> if the economic value of ALT starts exceeeding a BTC in USD terms b/c of a significant innovation.

that's true but then why should we duplicate that exposure via SC's? in fact, this is worse b/c of all the other conflicts of interest involving core devs i've mentioned in this discussion.

Using SC, bitcoin can adapt ANY feature instantly. Bitcoin can test this feature in sandbox (SC) and make resulta) must to have -> feature is implementedb) nice to have -> let's wait we will see latter, SC works goodc) scam -> feature RIP

It is one of 1,000 ... advantages of SC

but you haven't addressed JR's complaint in this scenario. b/c 5 of the devs who can commit (2 of which can write) are part of Blockstream, they have a financial incentive to perhaps surreptitiously dissuade thru fillibuster any SC innovations that might ported to Bitcoin Core while continuing to nurture the SC. the economic interest to do this would be if they pre-positioned themselves in some pre-existing SC asset. and you would never know since ownership would be anonymous.

my point is you can't just say "they would never do this". history is riddled with such flawed reasoning.

but you haven't addressed JR's complaint in this scenario. b/c 5 of the devs who can commit (2 of which can write) are part of Blockstream, they have a financial incentive to perhaps surreptitiously dissuade thru fillibuster any SC innovations that might ported to Bitcoin Core while continuing to nurture the SC.

I agree with the principle of it, but in practice it would be hard to increase the amount of fillibustering.

EDIT: To be fair over at least the past six months the conflict has already existed in secret, so perhaps one could argue that that the status quo is not a good baseline. But this state of things goes back for years really.

besides, if you've ever did controlled studies, the best way to implement one of these SC's is to duplicate everything about Bitcoin and then add one killer function/variable, like anonymity, to definitively prove a difference. that's the whole purpose of these SC's as Erdogan says above, to create better features. and since both BTC and scBTC will be traded 24/7 they will reach their equilibrium values which WON'T be the same as the chains are by design different. your above theory of equal value doesn't apply b/c of mining fees to convert.

in fact, if there is a rush to get out of BTC and into scBTC, miners are going to HAVE TO charge extortionist tx fees b/c it would be clear that BTC will be going to zero so their risk of mining an SPV proof while being paid in BTC is high.

I've avoided it for the reasons I have stated : I cannot envision that scenario unfolding.

The ONLY killer function you could add is indeed, anonymity. And by killer I mean it would steal part of Bitcoin's market share but nevertheless you would still be left two economies : a white market and a black market.

Of course their value will not be the same because the sidechains in effect are apart of Bitcoin's economy. The value of Bitcoin will be represented by the value of all sidechains combined and of the standalone BTC blockchain.

It seems you are putting forward a scenario that has mostly been dismissed ever since it existed from the presence of altcoins only because of your pessimism about sidechains.

i've given you a very plausible path to a scenario that could hurt Bitcoin. you can choose to hand wave it away, but i know human nature and if there is money to be made, ppl will go for it. especially since they are in a for-profit company with a financial guy like Hill. that's not a personal knock against him; it's his job to go for it.

this thread isn't for sticking your head in the sand. we flush things out here.